While not impossible, it is especially challenging for teenage parents to develop bonds with their children. A high percent of them were themselves children of teenage parents and have never experienced appropriate parenting. Eighty percent of teen mothers were already living with the stultifying stresses of poverty long before they became pregnant. Without early and on-going interventions, their early parenthood virtually guarantees that they and their children will remain vulnerable and mired in poverty. Children born to teens have less supportive and stimulating environments, poorer health, lower cognitive development, and worse educational outcomes.
If we as a nation are to break the cycle of poverty, crime and the growing underclass of young people ill equipped to be productive citizens, we need to not only implement effective programs to prevent teen pregnancy, but we must also help those who have already given birth so that they become effective, nurturing, bonding parents.
This is why, a number of years ago, I brought the “Community-Based Doula Program” to Georgia where it has been under the wing of the Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention (G-CAPP).
A doula is a birth assistant who provides emotional and physical support to the mother and her family during labor and delivery. Our doulas, however, go beyond the call of the traditional doula. Many times they take on the role of mother, big sister, friend, counselor, social worker, advocate, life coach and more. The doulas make weekly home visits to pregnant teens and their families starting in the third trimester and up to one year after the birth of their baby. They help young mothers (and often times fathers) understand the birth process, and support them during labor and delivery. So many of these young parents don’t know what a real relationship feels like, but through their example, the Doulas model for the mothers and fathers how to be in relationship, how to bond. This is what transforms the young parents forever and gives their babies a better chance in life.
The Community-Based Doula Program has produced some amazing results including c-section rates nearly half the national rate and breastfeeding initiation rates 25% greater than the national average. It’s harder to quantify parental bonding, but we listen to what the young mothers in the program have to say. “I don’t really have a support system anymore,” says one girl, “but I can always call my doula because she still comes around and helps me when I need her.”
Another young mother says, “I had a lot of situations when I just wanted to give up. I wanted to give up on school and I wanted to give up on finding the baby’s daddy. My doula told me to stick in there. You going to get it. Don’t just let it go.” “Don’t just let it go.”
Profound words from a young woman who, under different circumstances, might have given up. When I see the results of our Community-Based Doula Program I know that if a Doula was a medicine, it would be unethical not to provide it. My great hope is that one day every Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program in the country will include a Doula Program. Funded through the Department of Agriculture, WIC serves the population of poor, often teen mothers but as currently implemented, WIC only address the nutritional needs of disenfranchised parents. The addition of a Doula component isn’t rocket science and it would create jobs for an army of community women who are chronically underemployed, thereby changing their lives along with the lives of the young parents and their children. A Win/Win/Win as I see it. President Obama take heed!
By the way, this isn’t some “charity work” we’re doing for others. This has a direct effect on every one of us whatever our socio-economic status. Think about it: Reducing crime and poverty and ensuring that we have an educated, stable work force has a direct effect on you and me and the future of our country. And we cannot do any of it without reducing teen pregnancy and the dysfunctional parenting that so often accompanies it.
]]>
The article said that main spokesman for the campaign, Gualberto Garcia Jones of
Personhood Colorado, held his 10-day-old son, Leonardo, as he announced the initiative.
"Two weeks ago, my son had less rights than a dog or a cat," he said.
During
the rally, abortion rights advocates distributed pro-choice literature
to the small crowd of people that gathered at the Capitol Thursday.
Catholic Leaders Against Funding for Abortion and Gay Marriage
In Washington DC, Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop of
Philadelphia and chair of the
Committee on Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops reacted to the Obama administration's proposal to use taxpayer
money to fund abortions in DC and denial of a same sex marriage
referendum, according to catholicnewsagency.com. Rigali said that no one can support abortion funding and say they also support reducing abortions.
In a letter, he wrote, "The evidence is overwhelming, and universally recognized by groups on
all sides of the abortion issue, that the availability of public funds
for abortion greatly increases abortions."
The article said:
The budget alterations proposed by the Obama administration and passed by a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee permit "local" but not "federal" tax dollars to be used in the District of Columbia. It will also expand exemption from cases of rape or endangerment of the mother's life to any cases in which a woman suffers from "a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness."
Disparity in Vietnam's Gender Ratio
In Vietnam, for every 100 girls born, 112 boys are born, a ratio that has increased in recent years, according to seattlepi.com.
The deputy director general of the General Office for Population and
Family Planning, Duong Quoc Trong, said the rising imbalance is due to
a cultural preference for boys who can "continue the
bloodline." He also said that many believe boys can better care for the
parents as they age, and because of this, many Vietnamese people are
using abortion for sex selection, according the article.
It also said that in 2003, the Vietnamese government prohibited doctors
from telling parents-to-be the sex of their baby, but many doctors
still do it.
"If we don't have intervention measures, we will repeat the same situation as in China," Trong said.
OTHER NEWS TO NOTE:
July 2: Catholic News Service:Obama: Impasse on abortion legality inevitable, but reduction possible
July 2: NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia:Anti-Choice Candidate Spotlight: Barbara Comstock (R-34)
July 2: State Bill Colorado: New Personhood Ballot Drive Launched
July 2: Catholic News Agency: Catholic leaders protest D.C. funding for abortions, same-sex ‘marriage' decision
July 2: Radio Kenai: Initiative Would Require Parental Consent for Teenage Abortion
July 2: Feministing: Google AdWords Policy Disallows Ads for Abortion Services in Over a Dozen Countries
July 2: AFP: Music star Cheb Mami on trial in forced abortion case
July 1: CBS Montana: Pro-life rally in Helena
July 2: The Frisky: Drug Addicted Women Paid $300 To Go On Birth Control
July 2: Business Week:Schools Should Give Kids Free Contraceptives
July 2: Colorado News 9: Advocates want abortion question back on ballot
July 3: Tidings Online: Pregnancy center seeks to offer education and support
July 2: Alliance Alert: Obama Administration calls for universal access to abortion at UN meeting
July 2: HuffPo: Just the Facts, Sir: The False Dichotomy of Catholics vs. "Pro-choice" on Common Ground
July 2: Common Dreams: "America's Toughest Sheriff" Agrees To Stop Requiring Court Orders For Abortions But Creates New Obstacle
July 2: LifeNews: Sen. Bob Casey: Abortion Shouldn't Strop [sic] Congress From Passing Health Care Bill
July 2: Examiner: New law first in nation to govern embryo adoptions
July 2: BeliefNet: Why Pro-Lifers Oppose "Family Planning" To Reduce Abortion: Pro-Life Leader Jill Stanek Explains
July 2: HuffPo:Montana Abortion Ban Proposed For 2010 Ballot
July 2: Wisconsin Radio Network: Abortion decline may be due to family planning access
July 3: WaPo: Obama Reaches Out Before Vatican Trip
July 2: OhMyGov!: Tom Coburn and the Pro-Life Earmark: An exercise in confusion and hilarity
July 3: Jakarta Post: Indonesia faces population explosion, official says
July 2: LifeNews: Florida Planned Parenthood Opens Abortion Centers Closed After Financial Issues
July 2: Fort Morgan Times: Cross-country walkers bring pro-life message through FM
July 2: Lancet: This week in medicine
July 1: Dunn County News: (Letter) Honoring reality is what 'pro choice' is all about
July 1: Science Blogs: Anti-Abortion Means Anti-Birth Control
July 2: Mansfield News-Journal: Letter: More 'family planning' doesn't necessarily result in fewer abortions
July 2: AP: Vietnam sees alarming rise in boy births vs girls
July 2: Gloria Feldt: Is Adoption Reform Common Ground on Abortion?
July 1: Change.org Women's Rights:And The War Against Ovaries Continues
July 1: Delaware Liberal: If Stopping Abortion Is Really Your Goal...
Still, pro-choice activists in Louisiana are optimistic. “What came out is something that we consider to be a major victory,” said Marjorie Esman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Louisiana. When the bill was first introduced it placed no restrictions on what procedures could be legally refused by a medical professional. “Any medical care of any kind could be refused,” Esman said.
Now the bill not only has an enumerated list, but it also cannot legally interfere with access to care. “If you’re the only pharmacy in a small town and there’s no [other] pharmacy within 100 miles, you have to have someone on your staff that will distribute emergency contraception,” Esman said.
Esman, who testified before the state legislature three times on behalf of changing, said that the ACLU called the bill “discriminatory medicine.” The more sinister potential of the original bill could have expanded far beyond reproductive services, Esman said. “If you were anti-gay, you didn’t have to treat gay people. If you were a white supremacist and worked at a doctor’s office you could refuse to make appointments for people who are non-white.” It was by raising concerns of broader threats of the legislation that the ACLU was able to build a diverse coalition to work on the bill.
Through the compromise ultimately reached on this bill, the ACLU achieved two objectives: protecting religious freedoms and protecting the rights of patients as consumers by ensuring access to care. Even so, Esman is sanguine. “[M]y feeling is that you shouldn’t enter into a medical profession if you object to some of its procedures,” Esman said.
Still, conscience clauses are becoming an increasingly popular mode of anti-choice legislation, and not all states will result in the kind of compromise reached in Louisiana. Arizona’s bill combines a conscience clause, allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception, with a 24-hour waiting period for abortions. The bill also increases penalties (from one year of prison to two years) for physicians that perform the already-illegal late abortion procedures erroneously and misleadingly termed "partial-birth abortions."
Gov. Jan Brewer, an anti-choice Republican who took Janet Napolitano’s place when she accepted the job of Secretary of Homeland Security, is expected to sign such legislation if it comes to her desk. Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, says that Brewer is “hot to trot on bad anti-choice stuff … she wants to sign some anti-choice [legislation].” Arizona is also considering legislation that would require that a parental consent form for a minor’s abortion, already required by law, also be notarized. This would create one more hurdle for teenagers seeking an abortion.
Nash also points out that while there is some movement on anti-choice pharmacy access legislation in the states, 11 other states have introduced consumer protection bills that would ensure access to birth control and emergency contraception. Four states, California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Washington, already have laws in place that ensure access. However, as I’ve written before, Washington’s law has a temporary injunction while pharmacists that are making a constitutional claim to religious freedom challenge it in court. The case could ultimately make its way to the Supreme Court, forcing a decision on whether such conscience rules are constitutional.
Of the 11 states that introduced measures to ensure access to contraception this legislative session, the bill furthest along in the process is one in Wisconsin. Known as the Prescription Protection Act, the bill is currently folded into the state’s annual budget bill, so it has a significant chance of getting passed. It is unlikely that Gov. Jim Doyle, a pro-choice Democrat, would support the bill.
Wisconsin’s bill requires pharmacies to have someone available during business hours willing to fill prescriptions for birth control. The bill also has broad public support. A 2007 poll showed that 84 percent of Wisconsinites support guaranteed access to birth control, according to NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin. And there are no anti-choice bills on the docket this year.
Nash would like to see more states with guaranteed access to birth control and emergency contraception. “This movement got started in response to pharmacists' refusal to fill prescriptions,” Nash said. Indeed, just last year the Washington Post wrote about Pharmacists for Life, a group that aggregated a list of pharmacists that refused to fill birth control prescriptions. Pharmacists are increasingly targeting birth control, but more commonly they refuse to dispense Plan B, often because of a misconception that Plan B is a form of medical abortion.
Perhaps the best way to fight pharmacist refusal bills is to approach these from a consumer protection perspective. Few pharmacists refuse prescriptions that don’t affect women’s reproductive heath and rights. Bills that allow pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control or emergency contraception are unfairly targeting women as consumers. Women deserve access to birth control and emergency contraception, just as other consumers deserve access to heart disease or other medications.
]]>nikita asks: I am a 23 year old female in a serious relationship for the first time. I knew my boyfriend for 3 months and have seeing him seriously for 4 months now. The two of us are clear on no sex before marriage, but are physically intimate. I love to kiss him and cuddle up with him. But, when it comes to touching each other sexually, it feels good at that moment, but later thinking about it all alone makes me feel so guilty and ashamed of letting go of myself that I start crying uncontrollably. Initially I assumed that this must be because I have never been physically intimate with anyone before, but even after 4 months this guilt has not subsided. I am not religious or anything, but I have always wanted to be intimate only after being sure of the guy. I do love my boyfriend and he's sensitive and everything. I haven't spoken to him about this since I don't want him to feel he violated me in any way. Is there a way for me to get over this?
Heather replies: What it sounds like, to me, is that whatever it is you've been doing sexually just isn't something you feel okay with yet or good about right now. I get that it feels good at the time, but when I talk about sex feeling good, any kind of sexual activities at all, what I mean is sex feeling good before, during and afterwards; feeling good physically, intellectually and also emotionally.
It may be best to press pause on the sexual activities that are making you feel this way for now. In a word, if it doesn't feel good -- in every way -- don't do it. You don't have to right now, or any time in your life it isn't right for you and doesn't leave you feeling good. If you're feeling like you do because you're in your twenties, please know you don't. I understand that when you're a later bloomer in this regard it can feel like you have to keep the same kind of time as people who started their sexual partnerships earlier, but you don't. The good stuff keeps, and my personal feeling is that even if it involves holding out, you want to wait for the good stuff. What's the value in doing anything that just doesn't feel right?
I'd advise you do take a little break right now from sexual activities so that you can have some time to yourself, without being upset about a recent sexual encounter, and invest your energy in working out and through how you're feeling. That time and space, without any internal or external pressure to have any kind of sex, or the emotional hangover you've been carrying around, should help you better figure out what it is that you want and need in order to feel good about your sex life, whatever it winds up looking like.
Why might you be feeling the way you are? Maybe you're not as "sure about the guy" as you need to be yet: you say being sure about your partner is important to you, as it is to many people. For some people, being involved romantically for a few months isn't enough time to feel that kind of sexual sureness. Maybe you're still really at kissing and cuddling and need some more time to get to more sexual activities, or need an extra level of commitment (or honesty!) in your relationship that'd make you feel more safe in all of this. I also want to invite you to take a look at the dynamics of the kinds of sex you're having, and make sure it really all IS feeling good at the time. Sometimes sex can feel good physically, but not so much emotionally or intellectually. Maybe you need to make sure that whatever you are doing, or ways you or your partner are behaving during sex, do feel authentic to you and right for you. Sometimes, especially when people are new to sex, they can feel like they're performing -- such as by mimicking sex as they see it in media -- rather than truly expressing themselves, and that can certainly feel ooky. Maybe your own sexual responses are freaking you out and you need to spend more time masturbating, rather than with partnered sex, so you can become more comfortable with them alone first.
Maybe you're feeling like this, for example, because you need some extra aftercare with any sexual activities you two do, including having these kinds of emotional reactions in the presence of that partner so he can support you through them and give you comfort. It's also a good idea to have more than one person to talk to honestly about your sexuality and sexual life, so maybe you also could stand to talk to a friend.
It's so important to communicate openly and honestly with sexual partners. That's the way to get to really good sex, to all the kinds of good sex can be. We can't control anyone's responses to our real feelings, but that's okay. We don't need to: each of us are responsible for managing our own feelings and responses, not those of others, nor should we expect others to do that for us. I think you can find a way to fill him in on how you're feeling with sensitivity and kindness so that he can hear this without feeling that he "violated" you. He's not responsible for you feeling one way or the other about your sexuality or the kinds of sex you two are having. No matter how great and sensitive any of us may be, that doesn't always mean we should expect that sex will feel right to a partner we're with: that's something else we can't control, we can only be responsive to the information, verbal and otherwise, a partner gives us about sex and what they wants and need. Your boyfriend's general awesomeness and sensitivity doesn't guarantee a positive sexual result for you both, because a partner being a wonderful person just isn't all there is to sex being good or right for someone else.
What he is responsible for, just like you are with him, is obtaining your consent for anything you two do based on what you tell him and show him. If you're not being truthful, or are hiding your feelings, that really is on you, not on him. And I think someone is more likely to feel they violated someone sexually who hides the range of their feelings than they are with someone openly shares them. If you're not sharing these feelings with him, you're also putting something of a cap on the level of intimacy you two are even having sexually. A lot of what makes sex intimate isn't about people touching each others body parts or making those available to partners, but about people getting close emotionally and intellectually and opening up our hearts and minds. If we're only telling partners the good stuff, the sexy stuff, or what we think they want to hear about our sexuality or sex with them, we're cheating ourselves and those partners, especially if we do want sex to be about getting close. On top of all that? When you are grappling with such tough feelings, not sharing them with anyone, especially the people closest to you, tends to make them a whole lot tougher. Being open about them, getting them off your chest, filling him in and also then having him know this for the future, is likely to take a big weight off your shoulders. And I'd say it's entirely possible that you could find that keeping these feelings secret and not sharing them with him is the sole missing piece in all of this.
I want to add that intercourse is not the only kind of sex there is. I say this a lot, but I'll say it again. Oral sex is sex. Manual sex is sex. People rubbing their clothed bodies on someone else's clothed body and getting off on it is sex. The things any of us do alone or with partners to seek out, explore, or achieve sexual pleasure and to enact our sexuality with others are all sex. So, if your values are such that you feel sex isn't okay before marriage, it may well be that you feel some of what you're doing is sex and you know that doesn't fit your values. You can either choose to adjust what you're doing, then, or to adjust your values. There's no one right answer to which you do, because what our ideals, beliefs and values are, and what our commitment to them is, how important they are each of us, is incredibly personal. You'll have to think about that yourself and draw your own conclusions, then make choices around them in alignment with those conclusions.
Since you express feelings of guilt, chances are good guilt is part of the issue. I don't know you outside of what you have told me here, so I can't say exactly why you might feel guilty, but I can tell you about some of the common reasons why people experience guilt around sex. A lot of people grew up with messages, covert or overt, around or about sex or their sexual bodies infused with shame, religious or otherwise, so they feel guilty having or enjoying sex. Plenty of people grow up with strong messages that there are right ways or wrong ways of having sex, having sex in certain contexts, behaving certain ways during sex, and those messages often trigger feelings of guilt if a person is making choices that conflict with those messages. Perhaps obviously, some people feel guilty around sex sometimes when they are earnestly doing something seriously wrong: having sex without someone's consent or against someone's will, having sex with someone they know they shouldn't be in other ways, doing things which are very unsafe for one or all partners, lying to partners in any way, lying to oneself, or otherwise purposefully doing someone or oneself harm, but I don't think that's probably what's going on here. However, if any part of you feels like any part of what you have been doing or feeling is as wrong as any of those things, then it might be.
I'm a big Audre Lorde fangirl, and you might appreciate something she had to say about guilt, after saying she had no use for it, which was that "if it leads to change then it can be useful, since it is no longer guilt but the beginning of knowledge." I'd suggest seeing if you can't think about it that way, and I'd agree with Lorde that's about the only useful thing guilt has to offer anyone at all. In other words, why don't you try transforming those feelings of guilt into a positive spark to explore what's best and what's needed for you based on the information those feelings provide?
There's nothing about sex biochemically that would create feelings of guilt, upset or shame: quite the opposite, actually. Chemically, sexual arousal, mutually-wanted sexual activities and orgasm result in us mentally and physically feeling great. However, because of that chemical boost, it's also normal, after all the happy biochemistry that is going on drops off, to feel overtired and a little low, kind of like how we can feel a few hours after a big workout or an exciting event.
It is also common to feel exposed or very vulnerable with partnered sex, which is what you seem to be expressing when you say you feel ashamed of letting go of yourself. Now, unless you're saying that to express letting go of your values, I interpret that the way people often seem to mean it when they're talking about it in sex. When we're turned on, when we are doing things sexually, when we experience pleasure, when we orgasm we do let ourselves go in some respects: that's part of what makes intimacy intimate, after all, and that's part of what makes sex pleasurable and exciting. We stop thinking about what we look like, what a partner might think of us, how we're supposed to behave in other settings. We go with the flow of our feelings and impulses, even if they look or feel a little strange or silly to us. We trust the other person we're with to be accepting of our sexual self. This isn't a way we probably behave with just anyone, or in any setting, and it's part of what makes sex special. But feeling that vulnerable and that seen -- in addition to potentially seeing or experiencing yourself in a different way than is familiar to you -- can really stir things up for people. There is nothing wrong with feeling stirred, sad, confused or upset around any kind of sex you have. The idea that everyone flops over after every incident of any kind of sex smiling and laughing, casually lighting a smoke and then heading out on their merry way, all la-di-da is hooey: sex can, and often does, create a whole range of feelings for people. Sometimes, sex with a partner will leave one or both of us shaken, or stir up feelings of sadness, worry or insecurity. Sometimes some part of sex or how we respond to it might even scare the living daylights out of us. The trick is to learn to share those responses, rather than to bottle or internalize them.
I do think we should also consider that it's possible, especially if things once everything else I have addressed here is already taken care of, or doesn't feel like it applies to you, that your intense emotions around this are because this is new, and because, by all means, partnered sex and intimacy can be intense and scary as hell in many ways, even when we remove the usual fear-factors we hear and talk about like fears around possible partner violence, pregnancy or sexually transmitted illness. Really opening up to someone else, sexually and otherwise, really starting to explore your own sexuality and sexual responses, especially with another person, are really big deals. Finally, if you find that despite all of this, and after some time and any adjustments you need to make, these feelings still linger, my suggestion would be to consider seeking out a therapist or counselor to help you work through them. Sometimes, guilt or shame around sex can be so strong and pervasive, no matter what a person tries to do, that the bast tactic is to find an intensive, one-on-one helper and guide to help you get to where it's coming from and work through it.
Here are a few links I hope will give you a little more good food for thought to take on the road with you:
10 of the Best Things You Can Do for Your Sexual Self (at Any Age)
Ready or Not? The Scarleteen Sex Readiness Checklist
Be a Blabbermouth! The Whats, Whys and Hows of Talking About Sex With a Partner
]]>See another post by Gloria Feldt, "Possibly the Most Idiotic Common Ground Discussion I've Ever Heard."
Yes, of course. Adoption reform is an issue on which those who oppose abortion and those who support a woman’s right to choose abortion should be able to work together to forge common ground for policies that make adoption a genuine choice.
See there, Steve Waldman and I have found common ground already. So now let’s get to the points of contention Waldman, the editor-in-chief of Beliefnet raised in response to my last post, referencing a proposal he made, intended (though I doubt it would) to reduce abortions. The exchange came about as part of RHRealityCheck's "On Common Ground" convo.
I do appreciate that Waldman acknowledges his suggestion that women be paid to “give their babies up for adoption instead of having an abortion” was a “half baked idea”. Unfortunately, he then leapt to a wildly incorrect assumption when he wrote:
Gloria Feldt, in her post, "Possibly the Most Idiotic Common Ground Discussion I've Ever Heard," writes, "Remind me, how do you spell "c-o-e-r-c-i-o-n"? How much money would it take to make you carry a pregnancy to term against your will?" Feldt's comment implies that a woman would invariably prefer having an abortion to placing a baby up for adoption.
Whoa horse, let’s stop right there. Not only do I imply no such thing; my entire point is that women faced with unintended pregnancy should not be coerced, urged, or even encouraged in any direction. They should be supported in making their own childbearing decisions and the playing field should be leveled so that they have full access to exercise their options.
To suggest that women need to be steered in any direction, whether with financial incentives, social approbation, or laws, is to imagine that women have no brains, no hearts, and/or no consciences. It is utter disrespect for a woman’s moral authority…for her very humanity, actually.
You will not likely find one person in the pro-choice world who opposes adoption or who would not work to make sure women have access to all the information, counseling, health care services, and social supports they need to be able to make free and uncoerced decisions to relinquish for adoption. But the conversation, unfortunately, often breaks down there—by those opposed to abortion, as historian Blake Ellis describes here.
Because to be able to make an informed decision, one must have unbiased, unfettered access to all the information, counseling, health care services, and social supports she needs to consider each of the choices available to her: adoption, parenting, and abortion.
None of these choices is easy. A woman knows full well that she is giving up something profound in return. Choice, you see, is sacrifice as well as freedom.
Which brings me to my second point that engendered Waldman’s contention:
And I disagree with the apparent inclination of some on the pro-choice side to minimize the adoption question entirely. "The real common ground is preventing unintended pregnancy, and it is logically incorrect not to start with that framework," writes Feldt.
Actually, that would be called "our team winning," not "common ground."
This is where Waldman and his partner in pontification, Will Saletan truly earned the title given their Bloggingheads conversation about the pay-for-pregnancy/adoption scheme: “Two Men, No Uteruses”.
I have a birds and bees news flash for you, gentlemen: if there were no unintended pregnancies, there would be precious few abortions, and we could all save our breath for other debates. That’s why preventing unintended pregnancies is the widest swath of common ground. It’s about making real people’s lives better, not some zero-sum notion of winning and losing a political game. Prevention offers the abundance of future life choices that most of us want for our daughters---or ourselves.
On the cusp of Independence Day, these words from the Declaration of Independence are a good example of how easy it is to miss an injustice:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...
Without taking anything away from the great document, when we look at those words with our 21st century sensibilities, even most of the men among us probably observe that the female half of our nascent country was left out, invisible in the culture of the day.
Unfortunately Waldman’s framework leaves women out of the picture just as clearly. All I'm asking is that women's inalienable rights be respectfully placed, at last, into the ranks of citizens deemed equal, and justly empowered to give their own consent.
]]>
The victory is a historic step forward for human rights only days after people worldwide took to the streets for gay pride, particularly in a country where LGBTQII individuals face discrimination, stigma, and violence on a daily basis.
Longtime sexual and human rights advocate Pramada Menon called today’s ruling a “wonderful moment that will live inside of me for years.”
“Did I walk into the courtroom thinking justice would prevail? I wasn’t sure,” said Menon. “But now, I cannot think of the morning [ruling] without crying. [I’ve received] calls from friends who are elated, who have come out to their families once this news was out… The battle has been worth it.”
In 2002, the Naz Foundation, a human rights organizing working on HIV/ AIDS in India, filed a Public Interest Litigation case challenging the constitutionality of this code. This law has legitimized violence and discrimination, including horrific acts of rape and torture, against transgendered, lesbian and gay people, particularly by the police.
While the original petition against 377 cited its adverse impact on HIV/ AIDS prevention efforts, the Supreme Court ruling statement was far more progressive, citing the value of an inclusive society:
“The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for everyone… It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality, and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.”
According to the New York Times, today’s decision applies “only in the territory of India’s capital city, but it is likely to force India’s government either to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or change the law nationwide.”
The International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC) congratulates and commends our partners for helping bring about this important step forward for fundamental human rights.
This post originally appeared on IWHC's blog Akimbo. ]]>
With thanks to our colleagues at Amnesty International for the information contained in this post.
Today, July 2, 2009, the High Court of Delhi found that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual sexual acts of adults in private, violated the Indian Constitution. This ruling decriminalizes homosexuality in India and is being hailed by advocates in India and worldwide as the first step toward equality for gay, lesbian, and transgender persons in that country. And with this decision, India becomes the latest country to join the global trend towards decriminalization.
"The decision is a significant step toward ensuring that people in India can express their sexual orientation or gender identity without fear or discrimination," said Amnesty International in a press release.
Amnesty quotes the Naz Foundation, an Indian sexual rights organization which brought the case against Section 377, as stating:
It's an incredible day, it's been a long battle. Today homosexuality has been decriminalized but not legalized. It is a baby step but finally India has entered the 21st century.
"This British colonial legacy has done untold harm to generations of individuals in India and across the Commonwealth” said Madhu Malhotra, Deputy Director, Asia Pacific, Amnesty International (AI).
As explained by AI, the ruling overturns a 19th century British colonial law which bans engagement in consensual sex with an individual of the same sex as “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”.
Amnesty stated that:
The law had been used to stifle the work of organizations working on HIV/AIDS prevention in India. The court rejected the law as discriminatory and “against constitutional morality."
Amnesty and other advocates are calling on the government to begin immediately to implement the law, in part, according to Malhotra, by starting to:
address abuse and discrimination by police and other officials and take measures to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in access to economic, social and cultural rights, including housing, employment and health services.
According to Amnesty's report, the court’s ruling rejected every argument put forward by the government in defence of the law. It found that section 377, the law criminalizing homosexuality, reflected an understanding of sexual orientation that is “at odds with the current scientific and professional understanding”.
In particular, the government’s contention that the measure helped stop the spread of HIV/AIDS is “completely unfounded” and “based on incorrect and wrong notions,” the court said.
The court acknowledged that Section 377 has been used to “brutalis[e]” members of the gay community and other men who have sex with men, abuses that have long been documented by local human rights defenders and Amnesty International, among others.
The Judges ruled that popular morality or public disapproval of certain acts is not a valid justification for restriction of the fundamental rights set forth in the Indian Constitution.
India has no laws specifically criminalizing child sexual abuse and has used Section 377 to address this gap. The court’s ruling now restricts section 377 to cases of rape and child abuse. Amnesty International is urging lawmakers to rewrite the law to deal explicitly with those crimes.
Amnesty has further called on those countries that continue to criminalize homosexuality to follow India’s example and repeal their own laws, the majority of which remain within Commonwealth countries.
For more information see the Amnesty report: Love, hate and the law: Decriminalizing homosexuality (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/POL30/003/2008/en) Public Document
]]>Nothing could be further from the truth.
The facts:
Catholics' overall approval of Obama is consistent with the fact that many Catholics themselves do not share the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
There is no danger of the Administration losing the broad support of Catholics on this particular issue, as long as the Administration makes clear its values and principles and goals and objectives, and as long as it sticks to the facts. The assertion that unless he bows to the most conservative Catholic position he will lose widespread support is a scare tactic of the right. (And in any case, this should not be the priority consideration in regard to freedom of choice, freedom of religion and the decision of whether, when and how many children to have).
While it is now clear from recent reports that any common ground proposal will not be accepted by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), this is also no surprise. We knew that already. The only thing that will suffice for the USCCB is if Catholic doctrine becomes the law of the land.
Here is what the White House proposal needs to do:
Focusing on facts will ensure that the public understands that the Administration is committed to what the President promised--evidence-based public health policies. It will also show the majority of the public that the Administration is not accommodating ideology, but standing on fact.
By doing so, the Administration can, in the long run, actually bring profound change to this debate: evidence-based policies put into practice will achieve many of the goals we seek and take the air out of the ideological fight in which we have been engaged.
]]>The legal persecution of homosexuals in India has its roots in the nation's colonization under the British Empire. A majority of the world's anti-gay laws trace back to an 1860 law, which British colonizers used. This law continues in India today. While section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalizes homosexuality, it says that only homosexual males can be penalized, leaving lesbians outside its purview.
This is what defines lesbians in the country, a group that is believed to not exist. Despite the annual show of presence and numbers in different parts of the country during the gay pride parade, lesbians continue to remain one of the more closeted groups amongst the LGBT community.
Criminalization of homosexuals makes them vulnerable to arrests with a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, which makes the penalties for gay sex far steeper than for crimes such as murder or rape. LGBT people often suffer repetitive harassment in the form of extortion, discrimination, ridicule, physical and sexual assault by government agencies, depression and despair arising from a life of duplicity - people forced to lead surreptitious lives by lying to their families and the spouses they have been forced to marry. Suicide is often the only avenue out of this cycle of violence. The irony is that there have been too few cases against lesbians since the implementation of the act, allowing many conservatives to use these statistics to ‘prove' that female homosexuality is alien to Indian culture.
Section 377 does not specifically talk about same-sex marriages, allowing gay and lesbian couples the space to exploit this loophole. Yet, it is a situation fraught with uncertainties since it also allows law enforcers to interpret the law as they want by leaving such marriages and couples at the mercy of any and every law enforcer's whim.
More recently, another film - that otherwise would hardly have made a dent commercially - ran into trouble with conservatives in 2004 because of its flagrant "lesbian content." Ironically, it also faced the ire of lesbian groups in India because of the portrayal of the lesbian protagonist as a psychopath.
This has been the case with a lot of commercial films dealing with the topic, when the lesbian is almost always against a social or family dysfunction which appears to become the driving point of her sexual orientation, thus feeding into the logic of alternative sexuality being a dysfunctional sexuality.
It is because of representations like this that are even more dangerous because they reinforce the traditional family as the right place of the Indian woman. And anyone seen as challenging this venerated institution then becomes the target of punitive action by self-proclaimed upholders of "culture" from within the community, or even the state.
The condition of the LGBT community has to be understood with the knowledge of women's role in Indian society, where public spaces are not only gendered but also heterosexist. In a sexually-repressive society, even women in heterosexual relationships understand sexuality mostly through violence. Caste and class distinctions ensure that heterosexual couples endure brutality and death for transgressing these barriers so the plight of the lesbian can only be imagined because violence against lesbians is inextricably linked to violence against women. Women rarely have avenues for redress, making the case for lesbians even more poignant.
Since the state protects women against domestic violence and marital rape, the widespread prevalence of these forms of violence and its tacit, societal acceptance are reflected in the small number of reported cases. But since lesbians challenge the very basis of this patriarchal order by completely excluding men from it, they are denied even this state protection against domestic violence and marital rape. They are often forced into heterosexual marriages by their own families as "a remedy" to their "sexual malfunction." There have been innumerable instances of lesbian couples forcefully separated by families and the community, and forced into heterosexual marriages. In other instances, they are legally persecuted like the case of a widowed mother of an 8-year-old boy from the eastern state of Bihar, who was charged with the abduction of her 19-year-old female partner. Many of the cases documented are of couples from small-town backgrounds and belong to the lower-middle class, having little or no exposure to the ‘western culture' or urban queer rights discourse, which challenges the ‘alien culture' discourse.
Patriarchy, in denying any sexual agency to women, ensures that they endure violence both as women and as lesbians since they are unable to play the primary stereotypical roles assigned to them - the good wife and caring mother. What makes homosexuality even more difficult is invisibility not just in the social domain, but also from political groups.
"Fire," failed to become a common forum for diverse rights organizations.
Lesbian rights groups that were attempting to bring the discourse into the realm of homophobia were, in fact, chastised by other rights groups for ‘derailing the larger debate of artistic freedom and democratic rights.' Thus, the issue of sexuality in the discourses on class and caste are very often seen as trivializing these more serious issues, a reflection of the seriousness, or lack of it, with which lesbian issues are viewed so what one witnesses is a total social rejection despite the obvious prevalence. It translates into a lack of support systems for these groups, and restrictions and controls on women's mobility allow them little access to the organizations. Even grass-root organizations are often clueless about sexuality issues and are unable to provide any support to these women.
This is what makes the first dedicated lesbian helpline in Chennai a truly path-breaking initiative.The fact that there are enough people in need of such a forum was evident, and even before the helpline was incepted in early February, the phones had already started ringing. Currently, most of the counselors are gay men, but the success of the venture is expected to draw more lesbians to volunteer. The call centre offers counseling services relying on qualified volunteers and GLBT advocacy groups as well as groups already engaged in offering psychotherapeutic services to lesbians have welcomed the move by joining hands with the helpline service. The challenges right now are enrolling enough qualified people to attend and document the calls, and finding a space for these groups of sexual minorities within mainstream society, where their daily existence is not circumscribed by the furtive lifestyle, continues to be an obstacle.
According to a report (PDF) released this week by the Minnesota Department of Health, 12,948 abortions were performed in 2008 – down from 13,843 in 2007 and the lowest number since 1975.
Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota said the decrease could be attributed to affordable access to birth control.
“The best way to sustain reductions in the need for abortion is to provide accessible, affordable birth control and accurate, fact based sexuality education to all Minnesotans,” said Kathi Di Nicola, PPMNS communications director. “Planned Parenthood continues to work with the legislature and in our clinics across the state to do just that.”
Di Nicola noted that 95 percent of the care PPMNS provides comes in the form of prevention. The organization provided more than 300,000 units of contraception, nearly 58,000 tests for sexually transmitted diseases, more than 20,000 breast cancer screenings and more than 17,000 cervical cancer screenings.
“The overall decline in abortion in nearly every category is positive news and a goal that PPMNS works toward every day in our clinics across the region,” she said.
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group, said the decline was due to the Positive Alternatives program, a faith-based, state-funded program that urges women considering abortion to forgo the procedure.
“This report demonstrates that Positive Alternatives is working for women and their unborn babies,” said Scott Fischbach, executive director for MCCL.
While MCCL is openly hostile to PPMNS, Di Nicola offered an olive branch in working to reduce abortions in Minnesota through education and contraception.
“We again call on groups like the MCCL join to with us in taking tangible, common-sense steps to prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion in Minnesota,” she said.
]]>In his column, God and Country, at US News and World Report, Dan Gilgoff underscores the Obama Administration's focus on "reducing the need for abortion," an objective supported by many in the pro-choice community because it focuses on the real issue: unintended pregnancies, and the need to dramatically expand access to basic prevention services. Fewer unintended pregnancies means fewer abortions in the long-run, but, if implemented effectively, is a strategy compatible with ensuring that women who want to terminate a pregnancy have access to timely and affordable safe abortion services.
This, not surprisingly, is not good enough for the USCCB. Gilgoff quotes U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Deirdre McQuade, assistant director of policy and communications as saying:
The phrase "reducing the need for abortion" is not a common-ground phrase. We would say that there is no need for abortion, that abortions are signs that we have not met the needs of women. There is no authentic need for abortion.
This of course from a group that is not only opposed to any form of modern contraception or HIV prevention method (e.g. male and female condoms) but whose position is not even shared by its own adherents in the United States. They don't share the same analysis of the problem as the majority of people working on this issue, disregard evidence in favor of religious ideology, and can't agree on any solution to whatever problem that makes sense from either a public health or human rights standpoint. Instead, their position is to replace government policy with theology and ideology.
So I am still confused: Why do they have a seat at the table?
]]>First, as reported on the website of the Ohio Supreme Court and Justice System, today, July 1, 2009, the Court ruled against off-label use of RU 486:
The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that a state law enacted in 2004 mandates that Ohio physicians providing the drug mifepristone (RU 486) to patients for the purpose of inducing an abortion must do so in accordance with the approval letter and final printed labeling for the drug issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which includes compliance with the 49-day gestational limit and with the treatment protocols and dosage indications expressly approved by the FDA. The Court’s 4-3 majority decision was authored by Justice Terrence O’Donnell.
The FDA approved mifepristone, commonly referred to as RU-486, for manufacture and use in the United States in September 2000. The FDA’s approval of RU 486 was based on clinical trials involving patients no more than 49 days pregnancy, and who received an oral dose of 600 mg of RU-486, followed two days later by an oral dose of 0.4 mg of misoprostol. Clinics in Ohio, however, were using the drug for terminations of pregnancies of longer duration based on additional clinical evidence, but not approved by FDA.
Off-label use of drugs is common. As noted in the original report:
After a drug has been approved by the FDA, in the absence of additional state-level regulation, doctors are permitted to prescribe that drug in different medical situations and to employ different dosages and delivery protocols for the drug than those initially approved by the FDA. This practice, known as “off-label” use, is not barred by federal law or FDA regulations. As a result of research conducted following FDA approval of RU-486, an off-label protocol was developed in which doctors administer a 200 mg oral dose of RU-486 followed three days later by 0.8 mg of misoprostol to patients whose pregnancies have progressed as long as 63 days. This off-label regime was adopted by the Planned Parenthood clinics in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati and by other providers of abortion services in Ohio.
A law passed by the Ohio General Assembly enacted in 2004 barred Ohio physicians from administering or prescribing RU-486 to induce an abortion unless the drug was provided to a patient “in accordance with all provisions of federal law that govern the use of RU-486.”
That law defined “federal law” as:
“any law, rule or regulation of the United States or any drug approval letter of the (FDA) ... that governs or regulates the use of RU-486 for the purpose of inducing abortions.” Under R.C. 2919.123, the prescription or administration of RU-486 by a doctor to a patient in a manner not consistent with “federal law” is a criminal offense punishable as a felony."
Before this law took effect, Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio and other plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court asserting four different legal bases on which the statute was unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. They recieved an injunction preventing state officials or local prosecutors from enforcing the original statute. Then, in 2006, while the temporary injunction remained in place:
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of Planned Parenthood, holding that R.C. 2929.123 was unconstitutionally vague and permanently enjoining enforcement of the entire statute.
The state of Ohio then appealed that ruling to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to ruling on the state’s appeal, the Sixth Circuit asked the Supreme Court of Ohio to review and interpret the law and to answer two certified questions:
“1) Does O.R.C. § 2919.123 mandate that physicians in Ohio who perform abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the forty-nine-day gestational limit described in the FDA approval letter?”
“2) Does O.R.C. § 2919.123 mandate that physicians in Ohio who perform abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the treatment protocols and dosage indications described in the drug’s final printed labeling?”
Writing for the majority in today’s Supreme Court decision, Justice O’Donnell answered yes to both questions, stating that the:
"provisions of R.C. 2919.123 are not ambiguous. It allows physicians to provide or prescribe mifepristone to a patient to induce an abortion only if ‘the physician provides the RU-486 (mifepristone) ... in accordance with all provisions of federal law that govern the use of RU-486 (mifepristone) for inducing abortions.’"
In a second decision, the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that Cincinnati Planned Parenthood would not have to release records to an attorney who contended that the Planned Parenthood affiliate "engaged in a pattern of abuse by failing to report to state officials cases of statutory rape."
According to the Columbus Dispatch:
The court denied a request from the parents of a 14-year-old Cincinnati girl for records of other girls who obtained abortions from the Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio clinic.
The parents sued after the girl received an abortion in 2004 under false pretenses. She had been sexually abused and impregnated by her 21-year-old soccer coach, a police investigation revealed. The coach impersonated the girl's father in order to give her permission for the abortion.
The parents accused Planned Parenthood of negligence and of a pattern of ignoring evidence of abuse. They sought records from the abortion provider to establish their claim.
In a split decision, the Supreme Court said Planned Parenthood could not be compelled to turn over confidential medical records, but the parents still can pursue their legal claims against the clinic.
]]>
“While addressing the media, Ntawukuriryayo, who is also a former health minister argued that emphasizing abstinence is not practical adding that if condoms are within reach for the entire population then the ‘stigma’ about their use will cease to exist.
“‘Condoms are used for family planning. They help the users to avoid unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Unfortunately most people still think that they are manufactured for sex workers.’”